rockyBeli wrote:1 year later, Warriors won this trade in a landslide. If you're just looking at a talent for talent trade evaluation, the jury is still out on that because Bogut has hardly played. So 1 yr later, it's undetermined. But even if Bogut never steps foot on a court again, the Warriors won the trade. The trade wasn't only about talent for talent, it was multiple factors. Only the Bucks offer (with no upgrade in talent cuz Bogut was out for the year) enables a tank to get the #7 pick Harrion Barnes, enables Klay Thompson to get heavy minutes and develop, enables the trade to get #30 pick Ezeli, and enables us to unload Ellis on another team. Bucks offer was the best out there and the trade HAD to be made, so they win the trade. How much they win the trade is yet to be determined. Bogut playing and becoming a factor, and it'd be just ridiculous how great a move this was for the FO.

But the only thing that matters about this trade is in the W-L category. Basically, trading Monta Ellis for a bag of chips was a good move because of addition by subtraction. This so happened to be the best tasting bag of chips out there because of all of the surrounding factors (injured Bogut enabling tank, Bogut being a top 5 center, etc) . And it could pay off, as many trades in the past have, not in the 1 yr scope but in the following years.

Yep, expanding on my Texas Ranger analogy, they lost Hamilton, Young, and Napoli.

Napoli had a WAR of 2Young had a WAR of -1.2Josh Hamilton had a WAR of 4.4--------------------------------------WAR: 5.2 over three players. Essentially three Cody Roses.

ReplacementsLance Berkman's Projected WAR is 2.4Geovany Soto/AJ Perzynski's Projected WAR is 2.9 (probably a platoon here because one hits righties well and one hits lefties well, but I could see Ron ****ing that up.)

That's a combined WAR of 5.3.

This is the definition of addition by subtraction and we did the same exact thing by getting rid of Ellis.

My point being, is the Rangers won their trade despite not getting anything back for Michael Young.

Interesting crossover, BF. Intriguing to say the least, but I'd like to go back to a point that Rocky made: the trade ensured the Warriors enough of a tank job to procure Harrison Barnes at the #7 pick.

I find this sentiment most interesting because it tends to come from fellas who also concede that Ellis was a team cancer who needed to be disposed of. A black hole player; a guy whose constant need to be the center of the offense and force his inefficient scoring agenda to the forefront of every Warriors' gameplan effectively destroyed any chance this team had to be anything but lottery bound.

So my question is: which player is Ellis, really?

Is he the black hole loser who NEEDED to be traded in order for this team to improve... or was he a winning asset who would have carried us above the draft lottery and thus forced our draft pick to Salt Lake City had we not dealt him away? It's a paradox to claim he was both.

The point is: you can't claim Ellis was a loser who needed to be traded and then also claim that he was a winner who would have denied us Harrison Barnes. Because, if we concede the idea that keeping Ellis would have taken us out of the runnings for 7-pick, we are conceding that Ellis contributes something to the win column, and THAT makes this trade a win for Milwaukee - since Ellis is playing and Bogut is not.

Is he the black hole loser who NEEDED to be traded in order for this team to improve... or was he a winning asset who would have carried us above the draft lottery and thus forced our draft pick to Salt Lake City had we not dealt him away? It's a paradox to claim he was both.

mediocre enough to not make the playoffs and not tank. I mean Curry was out, so we had guys like Charles Jenkins and Jeremy Tyler starting during some of those tank games. So no way suggesting Jenkins would get more wins than Ellis.

So yeah they had some injuries, but it kinda comes back to which is the better backcourt -- Steph / Ellis or Steph / Klay. Results speak for themselves. I would even go so far to say that Klay is a better basketball player than Ellis. Not a better scorer per se, but a better Baller. Understands the game better, isn't an undersized detriment on D, not 1-dimensional like Ellis, and is a better overall fit for the team and beside Steph. So ANY trade that got rid of Ellis was a gain because it allowed the Warriors to have a stronger, more legit backcourt.

Sure, but the fact that Ellis needed to go and Milwaukee took him doesn't make this a good trade in and of itself because, in the end, we acquired 2 larger contracts (Jefferson at $12 million, Bogut at $13) for a smaller one (Ellis at $11 million) and a Kwame Brown expirer that took $7 million off the books. So if eliminating Ellis from the equation was the sole purpose of the trade, why not dish him (by himself) for Stephen Jackson, flip Jack to the Spurs for RJ & the pick, and only have one cankerous contract on the books instead of two? Kwame could have expired, the Warriors would be in play for another fill-in center for the interim, and Ellis would have been rotting the Bucks from the inside out.

You see, the maneuvering of assets is what keeps me from saying either team won. Admittedly, I was trying to be provocative when I suggested the value-paradox of Ellis, but I'm dead serious in terms of our management turning $11 million this year (for a 38 MPG player) into $25 for a couple of guys who may average out to a fraction (like, 7 or 8 times less) of the minutes that Ellis' provided. We acquired less play (albeit, more meaningful play, when Bogut and Jefferson actually suit up) for double the money. That's not exactly addition by subtraction; it's more like Aaron Ralston cutting his arm off to escape being trapped under a boulder.

But, in the end, I see how the Warriors have responded to dishing Ellis away and no one can deny the results thus far. I'm simply incapable of calling this trade a win until Bogut proves he can play double-digit games this season and 55+ next year. If that doesn't happen, no matter how well the Warriors play, I can't attribute the results to the dowry received in this trade.

32 wrote:Sure, but the fact that Ellis needed to go and Milwaukee took him doesn't make this a good trade in and of itself because, in the end, we acquired 2 larger contracts (Jefferson at $12 million, Bogut at $13) for a smaller one (Ellis at $11 million) and a Kwame Brown expirer that took $7 million off the books. So if eliminating Ellis from the equation was the sole purpose of the trade, why not dish him (by himself) for Stephen Jackson, flip Jack to the Spurs for RJ & the pick, and only have one cankerous contract on the books instead of two? Kwame could have expired, the Warriors would be in play for another fill-in center for the interim, and Ellis would have been rotting the Bucks from the inside out.

You see, the maneuvering of assets is what keeps me from saying either team won. Admittedly, I was trying to be provocative when I suggested the value-paradox of Ellis, but I'm dead serious in terms of our management turning $11 million this year (for a 38 MPG player) into $25 for a couple of guys who may average out to a fraction (like, 7 or 8 times less) of the minutes that Ellis' provided. We acquired less play (albeit, more meaningful play, when Bogut and Jefferson actually suit up) for double the money. That's not exactly addition by subtraction; it's more like Aaron Ralston cutting his arm off to escape being trapped under a boulder.

But, in the end, I see how the Warriors have responded to dishing Ellis away and no one can deny the results thus far. I'm simply incapable of calling this trade a win until Bogut proves he can play double-digit games this season and 55+ next year. If that doesn't happen, no matter how well the Warriors play, I can't attribute the results to the dowry received in this trade.

There being better trade options does not make us lose this trade. This trade needs to be viewed from the outcome of this trade alone.

32 wrote:Sure, but the fact that Ellis needed to go and Milwaukee took him doesn't make this a good trade in and of itself because, in the end, we acquired 2 larger contracts (Jefferson at $12 million, Bogut at $13) for a smaller one (Ellis at $11 million) and a Kwame Brown expirer that took $7 million off the books. So if eliminating Ellis from the equation was the sole purpose of the trade, why not dish him (by himself) for Stephen Jackson, flip Jack to the Spurs for RJ & the pick, and only have one cankerous contract on the books instead of two? Kwame could have expired, the Warriors would be in play for another fill-in center for the interim, and Ellis would have been rotting the Bucks from the inside out.

You see, the maneuvering of assets is what keeps me from saying either team won. Admittedly, I was trying to be provocative when I suggested the value-paradox of Ellis, but I'm dead serious in terms of our management turning $11 million this year (for a 38 MPG player) into $25 for a couple of guys who may average out to a fraction (like, 7 or 8 times less) of the minutes that Ellis' provided. We acquired less play (albeit, more meaningful play, when Bogut and Jefferson actually suit up) for double the money. That's not exactly addition by subtraction; it's more like Aaron Ralston cutting his arm off to escape being trapped under a boulder.

But, in the end, I see how the Warriors have responded to dishing Ellis away and no one can deny the results thus far. I'm simply incapable of calling this trade a win until Bogut proves he can play double-digit games this season and 55+ next year. If that doesn't happen, no matter how well the Warriors play, I can't attribute the results to the dowry received in this trade.

There being better trade options does not make us lose this trade. This trade needs to be viewed from the outcome of this trade alone.

I'm not saying there were better trades; I'm saying the assets of the trade can not be viewed as a win. Richard Jefferson and Andrew Bogut have been 90% dead salary weight. Festus Ezeli's production is comparable to Epke Udoh's when he was here, so that's a wash.

We did not acquire David Lee, Steph Curry, or Klay Thompson via our trade with Milwaukee.

32 wrote:Sure, but the fact that Ellis needed to go and Milwaukee took him doesn't make this a good trade in and of itself because, in the end, we acquired 2 larger contracts (Jefferson at $12 million, Bogut at $13) for a smaller one (Ellis at $11 million) and a Kwame Brown expirer that took $7 million off the books. So if eliminating Ellis from the equation was the sole purpose of the trade, why not dish him (by himself) for Stephen Jackson, flip Jack to the Spurs for RJ & the pick, and only have one cankerous contract on the books instead of two? Kwame could have expired, the Warriors would be in play for another fill-in center for the interim, and Ellis would have been rotting the Bucks from the inside out.

You see, the maneuvering of assets is what keeps me from saying either team won. Admittedly, I was trying to be provocative when I suggested the value-paradox of Ellis, but I'm dead serious in terms of our management turning $11 million this year (for a 38 MPG player) into $25 for a couple of guys who may average out to a fraction (like, 7 or 8 times less) of the minutes that Ellis' provided. We acquired less play (albeit, more meaningful play, when Bogut and Jefferson actually suit up) for double the money. That's not exactly addition by subtraction; it's more like Aaron Ralston cutting his arm off to escape being trapped under a boulder.

But, in the end, I see how the Warriors have responded to dishing Ellis away and no one can deny the results thus far. I'm simply incapable of calling this trade a win until Bogut proves he can play double-digit games this season and 55+ next year. If that doesn't happen, no matter how well the Warriors play, I can't attribute the results to the dowry received in this trade.

There being better trade options does not make us lose this trade. This trade needs to be viewed from the outcome of this trade alone.

I'm not saying there were better trades; I'm saying the assets of the trade can not be viewed as a win. Richard Jefferson and Andrew Bogut have been 90% dead salary weight. Festus Ezeli's production is comparable to Epke Udoh's when he was here, so that's a wash.

We did not acquire David Lee, Steph Curry, or Klay Thompson via our trade with Milwaukee.

I'd say the Warriors won, even if they got nothing in return for Ellis. Monta isn't a star player on any team. That has become even more obvious in Milwaukee. I've been to some Bucks' forums and fans are already want him traded because a Jennings (6'0) and Ellis (6'3) backcourt isn't going to work. As long as he was in a Warriors uniform, he would of thought of himself as the star player which would hold back players like Curry, Thompson and Lee. Chemistry can't be overlooked and removing Ellis gave this team chemistry. The ball zips around the court now, instead of one guy dribbling the ball for 15 seconds before calling his own number.

I voted that this was a win for the Warriors on the belief that Bogut will come back and contribute. If he never returns then I guess no team has won. But I still believe that it was a gamble worth taking by the Warriors front office. They rolled the dice for a legit yet injured 7 foot centre which enabled them to tank and acquire Barnes who may even help us net someone like Gay.